Prindable v. Gadfrey

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

LUKE ALEXANDER PRINDABLE, )

#462931, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 21-cv-00696-JPG

)

DR. GADFREY, )

JAYCENA, )

R.N. TOM, )

CITY OF BELLEVILLE, ILLINOIS, )

JOHN DOE, and )

NURSE BONNIE, )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

GILBERT, District Judge:

Plaintiff Luke Prindable, an inmate at St. Clair County Jail, brings this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 2671-80.

(Docs. 1, pp. 1-20). During his detention at the Jail, Plaintiff claims that he was given a cocktail

of medications that caused stomach pain, diarrhea, and bloody stools. Dr. Gadfrey and Nurse

Bonnie failed to inform him about the risks of adverse side effects when prescribing the

medications. The medical staff simply assured him that the medications would make him feel

better. Plaintiff claims the defendants poisoned him, and he seeks money damages from them.

The Complaint is now subject to preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which

requires the Court to screen prisoner complaints and filter out non-meritorious claims. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). Any portion of the Complaint that is legally frivolous or malicious, fails to state a

claim for relief, or requests money damages from a defendant who is immune from such relief

must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The allegations are liberally construed at this stage.

Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).

The Complaint

The Complaint includes the following allegations (Doc. 1, pp. 1-14): During his detention

at the Jail in March and April 2021, Plaintiff was prescribed a cocktail of medications for pain and

depression that included ibuprofen, acetaminophen, mirtazapine (Remeron),1 and lithium.2 Not

long after, Plaintiff began suffering from severe stomach pain, cramping, and bloody stools.

Plaintiff claims that no one ever warned him of these side effects when prescribing the

medications. When Dr. Gadfrey prescribed him mirtazapine (Remeron) and lithium, he offered

no information about either drug’s side effects. (Id. at 1, 9). Dr. Gadfrey just told Plaintiff that

the pills would help his depression. (Id.). When Nurse Bonnie provided him with ibuprofen, she

offered no information about its adverse side effects. (Id. at 8, 14). The nurse simply told Plaintiff

the ibuprofen would help him. (Id.). She then failed to take his vital signs, accurately record his

symptoms, or address his complaints. (Id. at 11).

Others refused to address his symptoms as well. When Plaintiff asked EMT Jaycena and

RN Tom to send him to a hospital and pump his stomach, they refused. (Id. at 2, 6, 11). This was

despite his reports of severe stomach pain and obviously bloody stools. (Id. at 11). However,

when he reported his symptoms to “Dr. M,”3 Plaintiff was switched from ibuprofen to

acetaminophen. (Id. at 9). He does not indicate whether his symptoms subsided.

Plaintiff requested information about each drug’s side effects and, only then, learned that

the adverse side effects could be dangerous and even life-threatening. (Id. at 11). Dr. Gadfrey and

1 Mirtazapine (Remeron) is an antidepressant that is used to treat major depressive disorder in adults.

(See https://www.drugs.com/search) (site last visited Oct. 6, 2021).

2 Lithium is a mood stabilizer that is used to treat or control the manic episodes of bipolar disorder. (Id.).

3 Dr. M. is not a defendant in this action, and Plaintiff asserts no claims against him.

Nurse Bonnie never provided this information before administering the drugs. (Id. at 6). In fact,

Plaintiff believes they were attempting to murder him, and he suspects the lithium pills were

actually filled with baking soda and lye. (Id. at 6, 11). Plaintiff now sues Dr. Gadfrey, Nurse

Bonnie, EMT Jaycena, RN Tom, the City of Belleville, and John Doe (unknown pharmaceutical

company that supplies the Jail) for money damages. (Id.).

Preliminary Dismissals

Plaintiff lists the City of Belleville and John Doe (pharmaceutical company) as defendants,

but he sets forth no allegations against either one in the body of the Complaint. Naming a

defendant in the case caption is not enough to state a clam against that person or entity. Collins v.

Kibort, 143 F.3d 3313, 334 (7th Cir. 1998). To pursue a claim for money damages under § 1983,

a plaintiff must allege that a person acting under color of state law violated rights secured by the

Constitution and laws of the United States. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988). A private

pharmaceutical company, like John Doe (unknown pharmaceutical company), is not a “person”

for purposes of § 1983 liability here, and Plaintiff points to no policy, custom, or practice of the

company that caused the deprivations at issue. Shields v. Illinois Dep’t of Corr., 746 F.3d 782 (7th

Cir. 2014) (private medical corporation may exhibit deliberate indifference through an

unconstitutional policy or practice that causes a constitutional violation to occur). A municipality,

like the City of Belleville, cannot be held vicariously liable for the constitutional torts of its

employees under § 1983, and Plaintiff refers to no policy, custom, or practice of the municipality

that caused a constitutional deprivation to occur. Monell v. Dept. of Social Security Servs., 436

U.S. 658 (1978). Given this, John Doe (pharmaceutical company) and City of Belleville shall be

dismissed without prejudice from this action because the Complaint fails to state a claim against

these defendants.

Discussion

Turning to the allegations in the pro se Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to

designate the following enumerated counts:

Count 1: Fourteenth Amendment claim against Dr. Gadfrey and Nurse Bonnie for

denying Plaintiff informed consent when they prescribed him a cocktail of

medications that includes ibuprofen, acetaminophen, mirtazapine

(Remeron), and lithium in March and April 2021 without providing an

explanation of the adverse side effects.

Count 2: Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment claim against Dr. Gadfrey and Nurse

Bonnie for failing to treat Plaintiff’s adverse side effects (stomach pain,

cramps, and bloody stools) in March and April 2021.

Count 3: Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment claim against EMT Jaycena and RN Tom

for refusing to send Plaintiff for treatment at a hospital or to pump his

stomach when he complained of adverse side effects that included severe

stomach pain, cramps, and bloody stools in March and April 2021.

Count 4: FTCA claim against Defendants for prescribing Plaintiff medications

without informing him of adverse side effects and then failing to treat him

for the same in March and April 2021.

Any other claim that is mentioned in the Complaint but not addressed herein is considered

dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled under Twombly.4

Count 1

The Fourteenth Amendment guards against the deprivation of liberty or property without

due process of law. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720-22 (1997). The Supreme Court

of the United States has recognized a “general liberty interest in refusing medical treatment.”

Cruzan v. Dir. Mo. Dep’t of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 278 (1990); Vitekv. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 494

(1980); Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 600 (1979). Courts of Appeals have likewise recognized

an inmate’s limited right to informed consent for treatment. See, e.g., Poban v. Wright, 459 F.3d

241, 249-50 (2d Cir. 2006); White v. Napoleon, 897 F.2d 103, 113 (3d Cir. 1990); Rainwater v.

4 See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

Alarcon, 268 F. App’x 531, 534 (9th Cir. 2008). Recently, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals

joined all other circuits in holding that prisoners have a Fourteenth Amendment right to informed

consent. Knight v. Grossman, 942 F.3d 336, 343-44 (7th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 233,

208 L.Ed.2d 15 (2020). The Court observed that “[t]he right to refuse medical treatment carries

with it an implied right to the information necessary to make an informed decision about whether

to refuse the treatment.” Id.

A prisoner’s informed consent claim is now evaluated under a two-step framework.

Knight, 942 F.3d at 343-44. First, the prisoner must demonstrate that his right to informed consent

was violated. (Id.). To do so, he must prove the following: (1) he was deprived of information

that a reasonable patient would deem necessary to make an informed decision about his medical

treatment; (2) the defendant acted with deliberate indifference to the prisoner’s right to refuse

treatment; and (3) if the prisoner had received the information, he would have refused the

treatment. Id. If the prisoner establishes that his right to informed consent was violated, the court

must next balance the prisoner’s right to informed consent against countervailing state interests.

Id. Liability only arises where the prisoner’s right outweighs the state’s interests. See, e.g., Poban

v. Wright, 459 F.3d 241, 221 (2d Cir. 2006) (“If prison officials, including doctors, identify

situations in which they reasonably believe that treatment is required, notwithstanding the

prisoner’s asserted right to refuse it, the right must give way.”). At this stage, the allegations

support an informed consent claim against Dr. Gadfrey and Nurse Bonnie. Accordingly, Count 1

shall receive further review against both defendants.

Counts 2 and 3

The applicable legal standard for Counts 2 and 3 depends on Plaintiff’s status as a pretrial

detainee or convicted prisoner in March and April 2021. If he was a pretrial detainee, these claims

are governed by the Fourteenth Amendment’s objective unreasonableness standard articulated in

Miranda v. County of Lake, 900 F.3d 335 (7th Cir. 2018). If he was a convicted person, these

claims are controlled by the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard articulated in

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976). Either way, the Court finds that the allegations articulate

a claim against Dr. Gadfrey and Nurse Bonnie in Count 2 and against EMT Jaycena and RN Tom

in Count 3 for the objectively unreasonable or deliberately indifferent denial of medical treatment.

Plaintiff’s legal status and the applicable legal standard can be sorted out as the case proceeds.

Count 4

The FTCA claim shall be dismissed with prejudice. The Act authorizes “civil actions on

claims against the United States, for money damages . . . for . . . personal injury or death caused

by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting

within the scope of his office or employment.” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1) (emphasis added). Plaintiff

did not name the United States as a defendant, and his claims do not arise from misconduct of

federal officials. Given this, Count 4 shall be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted.

Pending Motions

A. Motion for Recruitment of Counsel (Doc. 4)

Plaintiff’s Motion for Recruitment of Counsel (Doc. 4) is DENIED without prejudice, as

he has described no efforts to find an attorney on his own before asking the Court to recruit counsel

for him. Plaintiff should contact at least three attorneys or firms and request representation in this

case. If his requests are denied and he is otherwise unable to represent himself, Plaintiff may file

a new motion in this case. When doing so, he should provide copies of all letters sent to and

received from those attorneys or firms that denied him representation. Alternatively, he should

attach a list of the attorneys/firms he contacted, indicate the dates of each contact, state whether

he sought representation for this case, and briefly describe the response he received.

B. Motion for Copies (Doc. 26)

The Motion for Copies is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff’s request

for a courtesy copy of his Complaint is GRANTED. However, his requests for a wellness check

for suspected food contamination and for vegetables with his meals are DENIED as being

unrelated to the claims asserted or relief sought in this case. See Oswald v. Dep’t of Corr., 17-CV-

1437-PP, 2018 WL 4623583, at *2 (E.D. Wis. Sept. 26, 2018) (citing Devose v. Herrington,

42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994); Neuroscience, Inc. v. Forrest, No. 12-cv-813-bbc, 2013 WL

6331346, at *1 (W.D. Wis. Dec. 5, 2013) (denying motion for preliminary injunction because it

raised issues outside scope of complaint)). Plaintiff may file a motion for preliminary injunctive

relief in the lawsuit where he raises these claims, or he may bring a new lawsuit to address these

claims in the first instance.

Disposition

IT IS ORDERED that the Complaint (Docs. 1) survives screening, as follows:

COUNTS 1 and 2 will proceed against Defendants DR. GADFREY and NURSE BONNIE, and

COUNT 3 will proceed against EMT JAYCENA and RN TOM. These claims are DISMISSED

without prejudice against all other defendants not named in connection with the claims.

IT IS ORDERED that COUNT 4 is DISMISSED with prejudice against ALL

DEFENDANTS for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Moreover,

Defendants CITY OF BELLEVILLE and JOHN DOE (pharmaceutical company) are

DISMISSED without prejudice because the Complaint fails to state any claim for relief against

them.

The Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to TERMINATE Defendants CITY OF

BELLEVILLE and JOHN DOE (pharmaceutical company) as parties in CM/ECF and SEND

a courtesy copy of the Complaint (Doc. 1) to Plaintiff for his records. Because this suit addresses

one or more medical claims, the Clerk of Court is also DIRECTED to enter the standard

qualified protective order under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

The Clerk of Court shall prepare for Defendants DR. GADFREY, NURSE BONNIE,

EMT JAYCENA, and RN TOM: (1) Form 5 (Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service

of a Summons), and (2) Form 6 (Waiver of Service of Summons). The Clerk is DIRECTED to

mail these forms, a copy of the Complaint (Docs. 1), and this Memorandum and Order to each

Defendant’s place of employment. If any Defendant fails to sign and return the Waiver of Service

of Summons (Form 6) to the Clerk within 30 days from the date the forms were sent, the Clerk

shall take appropriate steps to effect formal service on that Defendant, and the Court will require

the Defendant to pay the full costs of formal service, to the extent authorized by the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure.

If a defendant can no longer be found at the work address provided by Plaintiff, the

employer shall furnish the Clerk with that defendant’s current work address, or, if not known, his

or her last-known address. This information shall be used only for sending the forms as directed

above or for formally effecting service. Any documentation of the address shall be retained only

by the Clerk. Address information shall not be maintained in the court file or disclosed by the

Clerk.

Defendants are ORDERED to timely file an appropriate responsive pleading to the

Complaint and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g). Pursuant to

Administrative Order No. 244, Defendants need only respond to the issues stated in this

Merits Review Order.

If judgment is rendered against Plaintiff, and the judgment includes the payment of costs

under Section 1915, Plaintiff will be required to pay the full amount of the costs, even though his

application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(f)(2)(A).

Finally, Plaintiff is ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to keep the Clerk of

Court and each opposing party informed of any change in his address; the Court will not

independently investigate his whereabouts. This shall be done in writing and not later than 7 days

after a transfer or other change in address occurs. Failure to comply with this order will cause a

delay in the transmission of court documents and may result in dismissal of this action for want of

prosecution. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 10/8/2021

s/ J. Phil Gilbert

J. PHIL GILBERT

United States District Judge

Notice

The Court will take the necessary steps to notify the appropriate defendants of your lawsuit

and serve them with a copy of your First Amended Complaint. After service has been achieved,

the defendants will enter their appearance and file an Answer to your First Amended Complaint.

It will likely take at least 60 days from the date of this Order to receive the defendants’ Answer,

but it is entirely possible that it will take 90 days or more. When all of the defendants have filed

answers, the Court will enter a Scheduling Order containing important information on deadlines,

discovery, and procedures. Plaintiff is advised to wait until counsel has appeared for the

defendants before filing any motions, in order to give the defendants notice and an opportunity to

respond to those motions. Motions filed before defendants’ counsel has filed an appearance will

generally be denied as premature. The plaintiff need not submit any evidence to the court at this

time, unless otherwise directed by the Court.